Alcohol production using sonication

ABSTRACT

A system comprising one or more transducers and an alcohol production facility having a liquid medium processing stream, the alcohol production facility adapted for use with the one or more transducers is provided. In one embodiment, the one or more transducers apply sonication to the liquid medium processing stream in one or more locations. In one embodiment, the alcohol production facility is an ethanol production facility. In one embodiment, the ethanol production facility utilizes a dry grind process, modified dry grind process or wet mill process. The systems of the present invention utilize sonication at the frequencies and intensities required on an industrial scale to reduce the production cost of alcohol, such as ethanol, by improving alcohol yield per bushel, reducing processing times for higher throughput, reducing operating costs, and increasing the marketability of co-products, among other benefits.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a divisional application of U.S. patent applicationSer. No. 10/926,783, filed Aug. 26, 2004 which claims the benefit under35 U.S.C. 119 (e) of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/499,126 filedon Aug. 29, 2003 and of U.S. patent application No. 60/509,362 filed onOct. 6, 2003, both of which are hereby incorporated by reference intheir entirety.

FIELD

The present subject matter relates generally to alcohol production, and,more particularly, to alcohol production using sonication.

BACKGROUND

The methods for producing various types of alcohol from grain generallyfollow similar procedures, depending on whether the process is operatedwet or dry. One alcohol of great interest today is ethanol. Ethanol canbe produced from virtually any type of grain, but is most often madefrom corn.

Since its inception, the national market for fuel ethanol has grown fromabout 6.6 million liters (about 175 million gallons (gal)) in 1980 toabout 7.9 billion liters (about 2.1 billion gal) in 2002. In 2003, theU.S. ethanol industry produced a record 10.6 billion liters (about 2.8billion gal), all of which was produced from 74 ethanol plants locatedmainly within the corn-belt. Recent federal government legislation hasbeen proposed, which would mandate that ethanol production capacity growto approximately 1.9 trillion liters (approximately five (5) billiongal) by 2012. Consequently, ethanol producers are seeking methods toimprove yields before incurring the high capital costs of direct plantexpansion. Because of the ongoing need for ethanol, as well as recentand expected future rapid growth of the ethanol industry, producers arefinding it difficult to incur the time and expense required to refineexisting technologies to meet the potentially mandated increases andalso remain cost competitive with intense ethanol producer competition.Higher yields are also desired for other types of alcohol.

For the reasons stated above, and for other reasons stated below whichwill become apparent to those skilled in the art upon reading andunderstanding the present specification, there is a significant need inthe art for improvements to alcohol production, such as ethanolproduction, which increase yields in a cost-effective manner.

SUMMARY

A system comprising one or more transducers and an alcohol productionfacility having a liquid medium processing stream, the alcoholproduction facility adapted for use with the one or more transducers isprovided. In one embodiment, the one or more transducers applysonication to the liquid medium processing stream in one or morelocations. In one embodiment, the alcohol production facility is anethanol production facility. In one embodiment, the ethanol productionfacility utilizes a dry grind process, modified dry grind process or wetmill process. In one embodiment, the ethanol production facilityutilizes grain as a starting material. In one embodiment, the grain isselected from the group consisting of sorghum, wheat, barley, oats andrice. The liquid medium processing stream can include heavy steep water,an uncooked slurry, a cooked mash, a liquefied mash, and (for a drygrind process) whole stillage, thin stillage and wet cake.

A method comprising applying sonication to a liquid medium processingstream in an alcohol production process in one or more locations is alsoprovided. In one embodiment the alcohol production process is an ethanolproduction process. In one embodiment, the ethanol production process isa dry grind process, a modified dry grind process or a wet mill process.In one embodiment the ethanol production process utilizes grain as astarting material. In one embodiment, the grain is selected from thegroup consisting of sorghum, wheat, barley, oats and rice. The liquidmedium processing stream can include heavy steep water, an uncookedslurry, a cooked mash, a liquefied mash, and (for a dry grind process)whole stillage, thin stillage and wet cake.

Although the systems and methods described herein focus primarily onethanol production primarily from corn, it should be noted that any ofthe systems and methods described can be used in any alcohol productionfacility and with any type of grain feedstock. The various embodimentsprovide systems and methods for improving alcohol production, such asethanol production, using sonication. The particular improvementachieved depends on several factors, including, but not limited to, thetype of alcohol being produced, the particular point in the process atwhich the sonication is applied, the manner in which the sonication isapplied, and so forth. The variables which can be adjusted in theapplication of sonication include, but are not limited to, the frequencyof sonication applied, the power intensity at which the sonication isapplied, the length of time the sonication is applied, the location ofthe transducer within the medium to be treated, and so forth.

In most embodiments the applied energy will be ultrasonic energy, i.e.,17 kilohertz (kHz) or greater, although it is possible lower frequenciesmay also work in certain applications, such as down to about ten (10)kHz or lower. In one embodiment, at least one of the one or moretransducers is a high-powered transducer generating about three (3) toten (10) kilowatts (kW). In one embodiment, the high-powered transduceroperates at a frequency of about ten (10) to 20 kHz. In one embodiment,the high-powered transducer is a high-powered ultrasonic transduceroperating at a frequency of at least about 17 kHz. In one embodiment,the frequency is about 19.5 to 20.5 kHz. In one embodiment, at least oneof the one or more transducers generates no more than three (3) kW ofpower down to about one (1) kW of power and operates at any suitablefrequency. In one embodiment each of the one or more transducers operatefor no more than about ten minutes in a moving fluid medium, althoughthe invention is not so limited and the transducers can operate for anysuitable amount of time as needed. In one embodiment, multipletransducers operate for less than five (5) minutes to achieve thedesired result. In one embodiment, about three (3) to ten (10) kW ofpower is used in one or more transducers at a frequency of between aboutten (10) and 20 kHz for greater than zero (0) minutes up to about ten(10) minutes.

Another factor affecting the resulting benefit concerns the particulartype of transducer being used to apply the sonication. Specifically, theparticular benefit obtained will vary depending on whether aconventional ultrasonic horn known in the art is used or whether anothertype of horn is used, such as a cascade type horn (which is known toincrease the area of cavitation bubble generation), whether more thanone horn is used, and the like. Other factors particular to theoperation can also affect the benefit obtained. This includes, but isnot limited to, the flow rate of the fluid medium, the nature of themedium to be acted upon, including type and amount of particulatecontent, temperature, and so forth.

In one embodiment, ethanol fermentation speed and/or ethanol yields areincreased by applying sonication in a dry grind, modified dry grind orwet mill ethanol production process anywhere prior to the fermentationstep (but subsequent to the first milling step in the dry grindprocess), as this helps to create a more homogeneous feedstock. In aparticular embodiment, yield is improved by about one (1) to ten (10)%.

In one embodiment, the amount of chemical and biological additives usedare decreased by applying sonication in a dry grind, modified dry grindor wet mill ethanol production process at any point prior to thefermentation step.

In one embodiment, energy costs are reduced by applying sonication priorto, during and/or after cooking in a dry grind, modified dry grind orwet mill ethanol production process. As a result, key processes, such asjet cooking can either be completed at lower temperatures and/or shorterdurations, or be eliminated altogether.

In one embodiment, transgenic proteins and transgenic nucleic acids ofgenetically modified feedstocks are denatured or degraded by applyingsonication at any point in a dry grind, modified dry grind or wet millethanol production process. As a result, stringent export requirementslimiting or forbidding the shipment of genetically modified food andfeed products, can now be met.

In one embodiment, bacteria and/or fungi and/or yeast contaminants arerendered nonviable by application of sonication in a dry grind, modifieddry grind or wet mill ethanol production process just prior to thefermentation step. As a result, infection of the product duringfermentation is reduced or prevented.

In one embodiment, complex proteins (i.e., proteins not normallybio-available to the digestive systems of many animals, i.e., proteinsnot susceptible to hydrolysis to amino acids by proteolytic enzymes)present in whole stillage are broken down by application of sonication,producing novel animal feeds having proteins which are less complex andtherefore more bio-available to the digestive systems of many animals.

In one embodiment, the insoluble solids in whole stillage are sheared,i.e., homogenized, resulting in increased surface area of the solids,which reduces drying time downstream.

Embodiments of the invention further comprise a method for increasingfermentable starch levels in a dry grind alcohol production processhaving a liquid medium processing stream comprising applying sonicationto the liquid medium processing stream wherein alcohol yield isincreased and residual starch levels are reduced. In one embodiment, thealcohol production process is a dry grind ethanol production process,further wherein ethanol yield is increased. In one embodiment, theethanol production process also produces distiller's dry grain solidscontaining the residual starch and protein, further wherein ethanolyield is increased by approximately one (1) to ten (10) % and residualstarch levels are reduced by approximately one (1) to ten (10) % in thedistiller's dry grain solids. In one embodiment, cell macromolecules arestripped away from starch granule surfaces.

In one embodiment, the cell macromolecules are protein, fiber celluloseand fiber hemicellulose. In one embodiment, gelatinized starch granulespresent in the liquid medium processing stream are broken open ordisintegrated, further wherein availability of gelatinized starchgranules to enzymes added to the liquid medium processing stream isincreased during liquefaction and saccharification.

Embodiments of the present invention further comprise a systemcomprising one or more high-powered transducers and an ethanolproduction facility having a corn-based liquid medium processing stream,the ethanol production facility adapted for use with the one or morehigh-powered transducers wherein sonication is applied to the corn-basedliquid medium processing stream in one or more locations. Embodiments ofthe invention further comprise a method comprising applying sonicationto a corn-based liquid medium processing stream in an ethanol productionprocess with one or more high-powered transducers in one or morelocations.

In one embodiment, the sonication is applied to a processing streamflowing at about 189 to 1514 liters/min (about 50 to 400 gallons/min(gpm)) at a frequency of about ten (10) to 20 kHz and a power of aboutthree (3) to ten (10) kW for up to ten (10) minutes in each of the oneor more locations. In one embodiment, the one or more flow cells are inseries or parallel, wherein the liquid medium processing stream isdirected through the one or more flow cells, further wherein one of theone or more transducers is placed into each of the one or more flowcells. In one embodiment, each of the one or more transducers uses acascade horn and sonication is applied for less than five minutes ineach of the one or more locations. In one embodiment, each of the one ormore transducers have more than one horn. In one embodiment thefrequency is between about 19.5 to 20.5 kHz and power is about ten (10)kW. In one embodiment, the ethanol production facility utilizes a wetmill process and the sonication is applied to the liquid mediumprocessing stream at least before or during a fiber washing step. In oneembodiment, the ethanol production facility utilizes a dry grind processand the sonication is applied to the liquid medium processing stream atleast anywhere prior to fermentation. In one embodiment, sonication isapplied before or after a jet cooking step.

The systems and methods of the present invention utilize sonication atthe frequencies and intensities required on an industrial scale toreduce the production cost of alcohol, such as ethanol, by improvingalcohol yield per bushel, reducing processing times for higherthroughput, reducing operating costs, and increasing the marketabilityof co-products, among other benefits.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a diagram of a prior art method of ethanol production using adry grind process.

FIG. 2 is a diagram of a prior art method of ethanol production using amodified dry grind process.

FIG. 3 is a diagram of a prior art method of ethanol production using awet mill process.

FIG. 4A is a simplified illustration of an ultrasonic transducer locatedin a process flow stream in one embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 4B is an illustration of an exemplary transducer with a cascadehorn in one embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 4C is an illustration of a flow cell for use with the transducer ofFIG. 4B in one embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 5 is a diagram showing novel methods of ethanol production usingsonication in one or more locations in a dry grind process inembodiments of the present invention.

FIG. 6 is a diagram showing novel methods of ethanol production usingsonication in one or more locations in a modified dry grind process inembodiments of the present invention.

FIG. 7 is a diagram showing novel methods of ethanol production usingsonication in one or more locations in a wet mill process in embodimentsof the present invention.

FIG. 8 is a diagram of a bench scale process showing where samples 1-4were taken from in a drying grind ethanol process and subsequentlaboratory processing performed on the samples in embodiments of thepresent invention.

FIG. 9 is a diagram showing laboratory experimental treatment flowbefore, during and after batch sonication for samples 1 and 2 inembodiments of the present invention.

FIG. 10 is a graph showing percent calculated ethanol versus corn slurrysonication time for batch sonications of subsamples of sample 1 inembodiments of the present invention.

FIG. 11 is a graph showing percent actual ethanol versus corn slurrysonication time for batch sonications of subsamples of sample 1 inembodiments of the present invention.

FIG. 12 is a graph showing dextrose equivalent (DE) value versus cornslurry sonication time for batch sonications of subsamples of sample 1after undergoing cooking and liquefaction by alpha-amylase inembodiments of the present invention.

FIG. 13 is a graph showing DE value versus flash sample sonication timefor batch sonications of subsamples of sample 2 prior to liquefaction inembodiments of the present invention.

FIG. 14 is a graph showing DE value versus flash sample sonication timefor batch sonications of subsamples of sample 2 following liquefactionby alpha-amylase in embodiments of the present invention.

FIG. 15 is a graph showing DE values versus percent of normalalpha-amylase dose of subsamples of sample 1 after liquefaction (withand without five (5) minute high-powered ultrasonication) in embodimentsof the present invention.

FIG. 16 is a graph showing percent ethanol versus fermentation feedsonication time for batch sonications of subsamples of sample 3 inembodiments of the present invention.

FIG. 17 is a graph showing percent total insoluble solids in wet cakeversus sonication time for batch sonications of subsamples of sample 4in embodiments of the present invention.

FIG. 18 is a graph showing glucose concentration versus sonication timefor batch sonications of dried corn fiber from a commercial corn wetmill plant under non-optimized conditions in embodiments of the presentinvention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

In the following detailed description of embodiments of the invention,reference is made to the accompanying drawings that form a part hereof,and in which is shown by way of illustration specific preferredembodiments in which the subject matter may be practiced. Theseembodiments are described in sufficient detail to enable those skilledin the art to practice them, and it is to be understood that otherembodiments may be utilized and that mechanical, chemical, structural,electrical, and procedural changes may be made without departing fromthe spirit and scope of the present subject matter. The followingdetailed description is, therefore, not to be taken in a limiting sense,and the scope of embodiments of the present invention is defined only bythe appended claims.

The Detailed Description that follows begins with a discussion on thevarious known methods of ethanol production followed by a briefdiscussion of sonication technology useful herein. This is followed by adetailed description of specific embodiments of the invention whichincludes a discussion of the various benefits of the use of sonicationat different points in an ethanol production process. This is followedby examples and a brief conclusion.

Ethanol Production Methods

Virtually all of the fuel ethanol in the United States is produced froma wet mill process or a dry grind ethanol process. A newer process,known as a “modified” dry grind ethanol process, described below in FIG.2, is not yet in use commercially. Although virtually any type andquality of grain can be used to produce ethanol, the feedstock for theseprocesses is typically a corn known as “No. 2 Yellow Dent Corn.” The“No. 2” refers to a quality of corn having certain characteristics asdefined by the National Grain Inspection Association, as is known in theart. “Yellow Dent” refers to a specific type of corn as is known in theart. Sorghum grain is also utilized to very small extent. The currentindustry average for ethanol yield for both dry grind and wet millplants is approximately 10.2 liters (approximately 2.7 gal) of ethanolproduced per 25.4 kg (one (1) bushel) of No. 2 Yellow Dent Corn.

Dry grind ethanol plants convert corn into only two products, namelyethanol and distiller's grains with solubles. If sold as wet animalfeed, distiller's wet grains with solubles is referred to as DWGS. Ifdried for animal feed, distiller's dried grains with solubles isreferred to as DDGS. In the standard dry grind ethanol process, onebushel of corn yields approximately 8.2 kg (approximately 18 lbs) ofDDGS in addition to the approximately 10.2 liters (approximately 2.7gal) of ethanol. This co-product provides a critical secondary revenuestream that offsets a portion of the overall ethanol production cost.

Wet mill corn processing plants convert corn grain into severaldifferent co-products, such as germ (for oil extraction), gluten feed(high fiber animal feed), gluten meal (high protein animal feed), andstarch-based products such as ethanol, high fructose corn syrup, or foodand industrial starch.

FIGS. 1-3 are flow diagrams of prior art ethanol production processes.FIG. 1 is a flow diagram of a prior art dry grind process 100. Theprocess 100 begins with a milling step 112 in which dried whole cornkernels are passed through hammer mills, in order to grind them intomeal or a fine powder. The ground meal is mixed with water to create aslurry, and a commercial enzyme called alpha-amylase is added (notshown). This slurry is then heated to approximately 120° C. for about0.5 to three (3) minutes in a pressurized jet cooking process 115 inorder to gelatinize (solubilize) the starch in the ground meal. Jetcooking refers to a cooking process performed at elevated temperaturesand pressures, although the specific temperatures and pressures can varywidely. Typically, jet cooking occurs at a temperature of about 120 to150° C. (about 248 to 302° F.) and a pressure of about 8.4 to 10.5kg/cm² (about 120 to 150 lbs/in²), although the temperature can be aslow as about 104 to 107° C. (about 220 to 225° F.) when pressures ofabout 8.4 kg/cm² (about 120 lbs/in²) are used. (This is in contrast to anon-jet cooking process, which refers to a process in which thetemperature is less than the boiling point, such as about 90 to 95° C.(about 194 to 203° F.) or lower, down to about 80° C. (176° F.). Atthese lower temperatures, ambient pressure would be used).

This is followed by a liquefaction step 116 at which point additionalalpha-amylase may be added. Liquefaction occurs as the mixture, or“mash” is held at 90 to 95° C. in order for alpha-amylase to hydrolyzethe gelatinized starch into maltodextrins and oligosaccharides (chainsof glucose sugar molecules) to produce a liquefied mash or slurry. Inthe embodiment shown in FIG. 1, this is followed by separatesaccharification and fermentation steps, 118 and 120, respectively,although in most commercial dry grind ethanol processes,saccharification and fermentation occur simultaneously. This step isreferred to in the industry as “Simultaneous Saccharification andFermentation” (SSF). In the saccharification step 118, the liquefiedmash is cooled to about 50° C. and a commercial enzyme known asgluco-amylase is added. The gluco-amylase hydrolyzes the maltodextrinsand short-chained oligosaccharides into single glucose sugar moleculesto produce a liquefied mash, which is also a “fermentation feed” whenSSF is employed. In the fermentation step 120 a common strain of yeast(Saccharomyces cerevisae) is added to metabolize the glucose sugars intoethanol and CO₂. Both saccharaficaton and SSF can take as long as about50 to 60 hours. Upon completion, the fermentation mash (“beer”) willcontain about 17% to 18% ethanol (volume/volume basis), plus soluble andinsoluble solids from all the remaining grain components. Yeast canoptionally be recycled in a yeast recycling step 122. In some instancesthe CO₂ is recovered and sold as a commodity product.

Subsequent to the fermentation step 120 is a distillation anddehydration step 124 in which the beer is pumped into distillationcolumns where it is boiled to vaporize the ethanol. The ethanol vapor iscondensed in the distillation columns, and liquid alcohol (in thisinstance, ethanol) exits the top of the distillation columns at about95% purity (190 proof). The 190 proof ethanol then goes through amolecular sieve dehydration column, which removes the remaining residualwater from the ethanol, to yield a final product of essentially 100%ethanol (199.5 proof). This anhydrous ethanol is now ready to be usedfor motor fuel purposes.

Finally, a centrifugation step 126 involves centrifuging the residualsproduced with the distillation and dehydration step 124, i.e., “wholestillage” in order to separate the insoluble solids (“wet cake)” fromthe liquid (“thin stillage”). The thin stillage enters evaporators in anevaporation step 128 in order to boil away moisture, leaving a thicksyrup which contains the soluble (dissolved) solids from thefermentation. This concentrated syrup can be mixed with the centrifugedwet cake, and the mixture may be sold to beef and dairy feedlots asDistillers Wet Grain with Solubles (DWGS). Alternatively, the wet cakeand concentrated syrup mixture may be dried in a drying step 130 andsold as Distillers Dried Grain with Solubles (DDGS) to dairy and beeffeedlots.

FIG. 2 is a flow diagram of a prior art modified dry grind ethanolproduction process 200. The process 200 begins with a short soaking 206of the corn for up to ten hours. The soaked corn is then degermed in adegerm step 208 and de-fibered in a defiber step 210. These processesphysically remove and separate germ and coarse fiber, i.e., pericarpfiber from incoming whole kernel corn. (Coarse fiber or pericarp fiberis the outer covering of the corn kernel and is also referred to as“bran.” Coarse fiber can be mechanically separated and is obvious to thehuman eye, as opposed to fine fiber, i.e., cellular fiber embeddedwithin the endosperm matrix, which is not easily mechanically separateddue to its microscopic size and is not visible to the human eye). Theremaining endosperm is then finely ground in a fine grind step 212 asshown. (This step takes the place of the hammer milling of whole, intactkernels, with the conventional dry grind process of FIG. 1). In thediagram shown in FIG. 2, the separated, finely ground endosperm isprocessed in the same manner as with a conventional prior art dry grindethanol process, which includes jet cooking 215, liquefaction 216,saccharification 218, fermentation 220, yeast recycling 222 (in someinstances), distillation and dehydration 224, centrifugation 226,evaporation 228 and drying 230 as described above in FIG. 1. The“stillage” produced after centrifugation 226 in the modified dry grindprocess 200 is often referred to as “whole stillage” although ittechnically is not the same type of whole stillage produced with the drygrind process described in FIG. 1, since no insoluble solids arepresent. Others skilled in the art may refer to this type of stillage as“thin” stillage.

The separated germ can be sold for corn oil extraction. The separatedcorn fiber can be fermented to produce ethanol in an alternate process,or can be extracted for higher value chemicals and neutraceuticals.Examples of chemicals and neutraceuticals extracted from corn fiberinclude fiber specialty oils, fiber phytosterols, fiber gums, fibercarotenoids, fiber tocopherols, and any other neutraceuticals andchemicals extracted from corn fiber. For a more detailed discussion of aprior art modified dry grind ethanol production process see, forexample, U.S. Pat. No. 6,254,914 to Singh, et al., entitled, “Processfor Recovery of Corn Coarse Fiber (Pericarp), issued Jul. 3, 2001 andU.S. patent Application 2003/0068415 to Taylor, et al., entitled,“Method of Removing the Hull from Corn Kernels,” published Apr. 10,2003, both of which are incorporated herein by reference.

FIG. 3 is a flow diagram of a prior art wet mill ethanol productionprocess 300. The process 300 begins with a steeping step 302 in whichthe corn is soaked for 24 to 48 hours in a solution of water and sulfurdioxide in order to soften the kernels for grinding, leach solublecomponents into the steep water, and loosen the protein matrix with theendosperm. The mixture of steeped corn and water is then fed to adegermination mill step (first grinding) 304 in which the corn is groundin a manner that tears open the kernels and releases the germ. This isfollowed by a germ separation step 308 which occurs by flotation and useof a hydrocyclone. The remaining slurry, which is now devoid of germ,but containing fiber, gluten (i.e., protein) and starch, is thensubjected to a fine grinding step (second grinding) 310 in which thereis total disruption of endosperm and release of endosperm components,namely gluten and starch, from the fiber. This is followed by a fiberseparation step 312 in which the slurry is passed through a series ofscreens in order to separate the fiber from starch and gluten, and towash the fiber clean of gluten and starch. This is followed by a glutenseparation step 314 in which centrifugation or hydrocyclones separatestarch from the gluten. As with the dry grind process described in FIG.1, the resulting purified starch co-product then undergoes a jet cookingstep 315. This is followed by liquefaction 316, saccharification 318,fermentation 320, yeast recycling 322 and distillation/dehydration 324.No centrifugation step is necessary at the end of the wet mill ethanolproduction process 300 as the germ, fiber and gluten have already beenremoved in the previous separation steps 308, 312 and 314. As with themodified dry grind process discussed in FIG. 2, the “stillage” producedafter distillation and dehydration 324 in the wet mill process 300 isoften referred to as “whole stillage” although it also is technicallynot the same type of whole stillage produced with the dry grind processdescribed in FIG. 1, since no insoluble solids are present. Other wetmill producers may refer to this type of stillage as “thin” stillage.

Maximum theoretical ethanol yields in a commercial ethanol plant canonly be as high as the total starch content of the corn feedstock. Mostcommercial ethanol plants do not achieve maximum theoretical ethanolyields. For example, with dry grind commercial ethanol plants, only“fermentable starch” is completely converted to ethanol, while thenon-fermentable starch remains in the whole stillage at the end offermentation. As an example, the DDGS produced from a standard dry grindethanol process may contain as much as three (3) to 13% starch. Thisresidual starch represents lost income in terms of inability of theethanol plant to achieve maximum theoretical ethanol yield based onfeedstock total starch content.

The inability to achieve substantially 100% conversion of starch toethanol is due to several factors which are not fully understood. Thesefactors include, but are not limited to, binding of starch granules tofine or coarse fiber (pericarp), binding of starch granules to proteinbodies and protein matrices, very tight packing of starch granules, verytight binding of amyloplasts which contain starch granules, the internalmolecular structure of the starch granules, which tends to make thestarch “resistant” to gelatinization and enzymatic degradation, and thelike.

Sonication Technology

A transducer is a device having an active element made from a suitablematerial and means for generating a change in an external parameter,such as an electromagnetic field, which affects the active element. Anultrasonic transducer is capable of operating at frequencies in theultrasonic range, typically considered at least about 17 kHz or above.For example, with active elements made from magnetostrictive materials,the element is changeable between a first shape in the absence of anelectromagnetic field, and a second shape when in the presence of theelectromagnetic field. In a similar manner, piezoelectric materialschange shape in response to changes in voltage. Other materials aredescribed in more detail below. In the example above, the transduceralso includes means for providing an electrical signal to the componentsproducing the electromagnetic field and an acoustic element, such as oneor more horns, connected to the transducer for channeling energy toperform work.

Most ultrasonic transducers are capable of receiving up to about three(3) kW of electrical power and converting it into mechanical ultrasonicpower at a frequency of about 20 kHz and in one embodiment this is thetype of ultrasonic transducer used. (However, the invention is notlimited to frequencies of 20 kHz and any suitable ultrasonic frequencyrequired for the particular application can be used. And, as notedherein, in some instances it may be desirable to operate at less thanultrasonic frequencies, such as less than 17 kHz, down to about ten (10)kHz). A “high-powered” transducer is defined as any transducer capableof generating power in excess of three (3) kW. A “high-powered”transducer is typically capable of receiving up to 30 kW of electricalpower and converting it into mechanical ultrasonic power at a frequencyof at least about ten (10) kHz, typically about 20 kHz.

The active element in a transducer is typically made from a smartmaterial, such as the magnetostrictive materials noted above. Smartmaterials are known to exhibit a change in shape in response to a changein input from an external parameter. Essentially, smart materials havethe ability to “sense” their environment. Smart materials includemagnetostrictive materials, such as ETREMA TERFENOL-D®, a metal alloyformed from the elements terbium, dysprosium and iron, fabricated byETREMA Products, Inc. (hereinafter “Etrema”), in Ames, Iowa, under thebrand name of “TERFENOL-D®.” Other magnetostrictive materials usefulherein include, but are not limited to, nickel, “Galfenol” (agallium-iron alloy originally invented by the US Navy), ferrous metals,vandium permendur, metallic glass, and so forth. Smart materials alsoinclude materials such as ferroelectrics, electrostrictive materialsincluding lead zirconate titanate or other ceramics, i.e.,piezoceramics, and so forth. Electrostrictive materials change theirshape when placed in an electrical field of varying voltage. This isknown as the “piezoelectric” effect. Smart materials also include shapememory alloys.

External parameters which can be varied in order to cause the change incompliance to occur, include, but are not limited to, mass load,electrical load, prestress, and temperature, as well as ac and dcapplied fields (or polarization fields), including electric, thermaland/or magnetic fields, as appropriate for different smart materials.For example, magnetostrictive materials such as TERFENOL-D®, are knownto change shape in response to changes in (or application of) an appliedmagnetic field. Such variations in the magnetic field can be induced byproviding a dc current to the motor or by varying the magnetic fieldstrength. A magnetostrictive material can tolerate high mechanicalstress, and has a relatively high energy density. High energy densityenables more mechanical power output from more electrical power inputand volume of smart material which thus reduces the size and weight ofthe transducer.

A giant magnetostrictive material can also be used for the activeelement. Examples of giant magnetostrictive materials include rare earthmaterials, rare earth-transition metal materials and compositions havingrare earth materials, transition metals and other elements.

Sonication, as with any sound wave, is essentially a series ofcompressions and rarefactions. When sonication of sufficient intensityis applied to a liquid medium processing stream (through direct contactof the transducer with the liquid medium processing stream), cavitationof the medium and/or components contained in the medium typicallyoccurs, as the medium can not react fast enough to accommodate the rapidmovement of an ultrasonic horn. The energy that is elastically stored inthe creation of the cavitation bubble is then released at a verylocalized level when the bubble collapses, thus generating very hightemperatures, pressures, and sheering forces at the microscopic and evenatomic levels. This transfer mechanism allows for the unique transferand application of energy within a medium that can effect chemical andmechanical changes in that medium and/or the components therein. Theextent of cavitation depends, in part, on the intensity of thesonication applied.

DESCRIPTION OF THE EMBODIMENTS

The various embodiments of the present invention provide for theinsertion of sonication into various points of an alcohol productionprocess (through use of one or more transducers) to effect desiredchanges to the fluid medium and/or components flowing in the medium. Useof sonication in this manner has multiple benefits, including, but notlimited to, increase in efficiency of alcohol production, production ofmarketable by-products, and the like, as will be described in moredetail herein.

FIG. 4A provides a simplified illustration of one embodiment of thepresent invention in which an ultrasonic transducer 400 having a horn408 has been placed in a moving fluid medium, i.e., a liquid mediumprocessing stream 402 (of an alcohol production process) containinglarge particulates 404. The moving fluid medium 402 may be moving at anysuitable speed, such as about 189 to 1514 liters/min (about 50 to 400gpm), although the invention is not so limited. Specific placement ofthe transducer 400 in the stream will also vary depending upon theapplication. In some embodiments, a transducer having a cascade horn isused, which significantly increases the contact area with the fluidstream, thus enabling a higher contact volume per unit time. In otherembodiments, a transducer having multiple horns is used. In someembodiments, multiple transducers are placed in parallel or in series inthe moving fluid medium 402. In the embodiment shown in FIG. 4A,sonication 406 generated by the transducer 400 interacts directly withthe moving fluid medium 402, causing the large particulates 404 to bebroken down into small particulates 410 through cavitation, as describedabove. The small particulates 410 are all shown approximately the samesize for simplification. In practice, the small particulates 410 may bea variety of sizes, including microscopic-sized.

The benefits of cavitation occurring in an alcohol production stream aresignificant. For example, cavitation of the moving fluid medium 402 andits large particulates 404 allows for destructuring, disaggregation, anddisassociation of starch granules from other grain components such asprotein and fiber which may inhibit the conversion of starch to glucoseand ethanol. The cavitational forces provided by sonication,particularly with ultrasonication, are able to loosen, shake off and/orstrip away starch granules from protein bodies, protein matrices, andfiber (fine or coarse), as well as disassociate tightly packed granulesand tightly packed amyloplasts which contain starch granules. It isimportant to note, however, that overprocessing of the components, e.g.,overprocessing of starch prior to fermentation, is not desirable.Specifically, if the applied sonication is too aggressive in terms ofintensity, frequency and/or duration, it may be possible to cause somedamage to the components being treated. For example, care must be takennot to degrade desirable proteins, enzymes, or damage the yeast.Additionally, care must also be taken to not shear the starch to thepoint that it is all converted into sugar too quickly, which could alsoinhibit or kill the yeast. Therefore, more intense sonication is limitedto specific uses that may be considered less sensitive to this type ofconcern. This includes applications that do not require the enzymes oryeast to be present.

In some embodiments, particularly when high-powered ultrasonic energy isused, cavitation is likely occurring within the fluid medium itself.Cavitation of the fluid helps to enable the other changes taking placewith the particulates. Specifically, disassociation of water moleculesinto hydrogen ions [H+] and hydroxyl groups [OH−] creates “freeradicals, i.e., miniature “chemical reactors,” which operate at alocalized level to enable some of the benefits described herein,particularly those requiring greater “destruction” of the components,e.g., denaturing or degradation of transgenic proteins and transgenicnucleic acids of genetically modified feedstocks, rendering of bacteriaand/or fungus and/or yeast as nonviable, and the like.

Examples of ultrasonic transducers that can be used in the presentinvention include, but are not limited to, the high-powered ultrasonictransducers described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,624,539, entitled, “HighPowered Ultrasonic Transducers, issued Sep. 23, 2003, by Hansen et al,which is incorporated herein by reference. Many of the high-poweredtransducers made by Dr. Heilscher GmbH in Teltow, Germany may also beuseful herein. In another embodiment, a high-powered ultrasonictransducer having a cascade horn, such as the transducer 450 shown inFIG. 4B can be used. An exemplary flow cell 460 designed for use with acascade horn is shown in FIG. 4C. Although the flow cell 460 shown inFIG. 4C has a U-shaped pipe 462, the invention is not so limited. Thetransducer, such as the transducer 450 shown in FIG. 4B can be insertedinto a pipe of any dimension or geometry designed to force intimatecontact between the horn and flow stream. In one embodiment, a HeilscherUIP 4000 Industrial Ultrasonic Processor is used.

High-powered transducers may be particularly useful in embodiments inwhich transgenic proteins and transgenic nucleic acids of geneticallymodified feedstocks are being denatured, bacteria and/or fungus arebeing rendered nonviable, and so forth, although the invention is not solimited. Also, as noted above, the use of high-powered sonication maynot be the preferred embodiment in other applications, such as when thegoal is to strip starch granules away from protein bodies, for example.For these embodiments, it may be preferable to use a lower poweredtransducer. In addition to Heilscher GmbH, Branson UltrasonicsCorporation of Danbury, Conn. also offers a variety of transducers,including immerscible transducers which use both magnetostrictive andpiezoelectric materials, which may be useful herein. In one embodiment,a piezoceramic transducer made by Branson Ultrasonics Corporation isused. In one embodiment, a 2000 Series Ultrasonic Assembly Transducermade by Branson Ultrasonics Corporation is used. Many of the transducersmanufactured by Dukane Ultrasonics Inc. of St. Charles, Ill., may alsobe useful herein. In some embodiments, transducers having an exponentialhorn, step-stub horn, conical horn, Merkulov-horn or Fourier horn, andthe like, can be used. It should be noted that the active element in theselected transducer can be any of the materials noted above in thediscussion on sonication.

Specific implementation parameters can easily be determined by adjustingthe plumbing of an existing alcohol plant to accommodate a transducersystem. For example, a special housing for the transducer can be addedto the system. For a cascade horn, this can be the flow cell 460 shownin FIG. 4C into which the transducer 450 of FIG. 4B is inserted andthrough which the fluid medium is directed, although the invention isnot so limited as noted above. Additionally, the required level ofsonication and specific beneficial frequencies can be identified bymeasuring the conversion rates, e.g., speed of liquefaction or speed offermentation, and intermediate or final product yields of the particularstep of interest, while varying both power and frequency of thesonication being applied.

Some of the benefits of creating cavitational forces at variouslocations in an alcohol production process include, but are not limitedto, increased alcohol fermentation, i.e., faster fermentations and/orhigher alcohol yields, decreased chemical and biological additives,reduction of energy costs (e.g., key processes such as cooking arecompleted at lower temperatures), denaturation or degradation oftransgenic proteins and transgenic nucleic acids of genetically modifiedfeedstocks and rendering nonviable bacteria and/or fungi and/or yeastcontaminants. The benefit or benefits obtained will vary depending onwhether the alcohol production process is a dry grind process, amodified dry grind process, or a wet mill process. Achieving aparticular benefit, within a particular type of process, however, isdependent on many factors, including the location or locations in theprocess at which the sonication is applied, the intensity and frequencyof the sonication, alcohol production process variables, and the like.

In one embodiment, sonication is utilized only once during the alcoholproduction process in just one location of the liquid medium processingstream, with one transducer. In other embodiments, sonication isutilized in more than one location with multiple transducers to increaseand/or vary the benefits obtained. The liquid medium processing streamcan include, but is not limited to, heavy steep water, uncooked slurry,cooked mash, liquefied mash and (for dry grind processes) wholestillage, thin stillage and wet cake.

In one embodiment, at least one of the one or more transducers is ahigh-powered transducer generating about three (3) to ten (10) kW. Inone embodiment, the high-powered transducer operates at a frequency ofabout ten (10) to 20 kHz. In one embodiment, the high-powered transduceris a high-powered ultrasonic transducer operating at a frequency of atleast about 17 kHz. In one embodiment, the frequency is about 19.5 to20.5 kHz. In one embodiment, at least one of the one or more transducersgenerates no more than three (3) kW of power down to about one (1) kW ofpower and operates at any suitable frequency. In one embodiment each ofthe one or more transducers operate for no more than about ten minutesin the moving fluid medium 402, although the invention is not so limitedand the transducers can operate for any suitable amount of time asneeded. In one embodiment, multiple transducers operate for less thanfive (5) minutes to achieve the desired result. In one embodiment, aboutthree (3) to ten (10) kW of power is used in one or more transducers ata frequency of between about ten (10) and 20 kHz for greater than zero(0) minutes up to about ten (10) minutes.

It is important to use adequate power for the particular application asotherwise the cavitational forces transmitted will not be sufficient.This is particularly true for mediums known to have a relatively highsolids content, such as about 20 to 40% by weight. In such instances, itis likely at least three (3) kW of power may be needed. In otherembodiments, much high powered transducers can be used, such as greaterthan three (3) kW up to about ten (10) kW.

FIGS. 5-7 are flow diagrams showing novel methods for producing ethanolfrom corn by including one or more sonication steps in various locationsof a dry grind ultrasonic ethanol production process, a modified drygrind ultrasonic ethanol production process, and a wet mill ultrasonicethanol production process, respectively, although the invention is notso limited. Again, sonication applied as described herein is also usefulin other grain-based ethanol production facilities which rely on variousother grains including wheat, barley, sorghum, oats, rice and the like.Additionally, sonication is also useful for grain-based productionfacilities which produce alcohols other than ethanol. Such alcoholsinclude, but are not limited to, industrial alcohols such as methanol,isoproponal, butanol, and so forth, further including propane diol,which can be used to make bioplastics. It is also likely that sonicationwould be useful in grain-based production facilities that producevarious organic acids, such as lactic acids. Most likely such productionfacilities which produce alcohols other than ethanol and/or organicacids are wet mill processes which utilize an alternative fementationprocess although it may also be possible to use a dry grind or modifieddry grind process to produce these products.

FIG. 5 is a diagram showing novel methods of ethanol production usingsonication in one or more locations in a novel ultrasonic dry grindethanol production process 500. The process begins as described abovefor FIG. 1 with corn being milled in a milling step 512. A firstsonication step (sonication 1) 501 can occur just after the milling step512, i.e., prior to the cooking step 515, which can be a jet or non-jetcooking step. Application of sonication to the uncooked slurry at thispoint causes protein and fiber to be stripped from the starch, thusenhancing gelatinization. Specifically, the resulting cavitation makesthe starch granules more accessible and available to water molecules toincrease the rate of gelatinization of the entire population of starchgranules. This results in shorter holding times for the gelatinizationprocess, which provides a cost reduction benefit by reducing the inputenergy to maintain the desired temperature of the solution as well as anet increase of production capacity via higher plant throughput.Enhancement in starch gelatinization also helps to speed upliquefaction.

Additionally or alternatively, a second sonication step (sonication 2)502 can occur during the cooking step 515. Additionally oralternatively, a third sonication step (sonication 3) 503 can beprovided to the resulting cooked mash just after the cooking step 515.Sonication during or just after the cooking step 515 process againcauses protein and fiber to be stripped from the starch, thus enhancingliquefaction. In some embodiments, liquefaction holding time and/orrequired alpha-amylase amount to achieve liquefaction is reduced whensonication is used in and around the cooking step 515.

It is important to note that it is undesirable to overprocess thestarch, particularly prior to fermentation. Testing will determine themost beneficial location for sonication in and around the cooking step.Therefore, the use of sonication before, after, and/or during cookingwill vary depending on the specific process, benefits desired, and soforth. It is also possible that applying sonication to the uncookedslurry may allow the cooking step 515 to be a non-jet cooking stepversus a jet cooking step. In other embodiments, sonication of theslurry in and around the cooking step 515 allows for lower jet cookingtemperatures and/or shorter cooking times while still achieving optimalgelatinization of the starch. At the very least, sonication in this areawill reduce energy costs related to the cooking step, such as the costsassociated with providing steam.

Additionally or alternatively, a fourth sonication step (sonication 4)505 can be provided to the liquefied mash exiting the liquefaction step516. Sonication at this point in the process causes disruption of starchand maltodextrins, resulting in enhanced saccharification. Sonication atthis point also reduces the amount of gluco-amylase required to achieveoptimal saccharification and will also reduce the holding time for thesubsequent saccharification step 518 and fermentation step 520. Althoughpossible, sonication would not likely be used during the liquefactionstep 516 or saccharification step 518 as it could possibly inactivatethe enzymes present. If sonication is used during either one of thesesteps, most likely additional enzymes would need to be added. In someembodiments, the saccharification step 518 and fermentation step 520occur simultaneously as described above in FIG. 1, i.e., SSF. Sonicationis also not likely to be used immediately after the saccharificationstep 518, although it could be in embodiments in which thesaccharification step 518 and fermentation step 520 are performedseparately.

After the fermentation step 520 there is an optional yeast recyclingstep 522 and a distillation and dehydration step 524 which producesethanol 525 and whole stillage 527 as discussed above in FIG. 1.Additionally or alternatively, a fifth sonication step (sonication 5)507 can be applied to the whole stillage 527. Sonication at this pointin the process causes degradation of transgenic proteins and nucleicacids, although it should be noted that sonication applied toessentially any point of the process would have this same effect. Thisresult is best obtained when using a high-powered ultrasonic transducer,although the invention is not so limited. However, as noted above, caremust be taken when applying high-powered sonication at points in theprocess that may result in damage to desirable active biologicalelements.

Sonication of the whole stillage 527 (in step 507) also breaks downcomplex proteins present in the insoluble solids of the whole stillage527. This is followed by a centrifugation step 526. As a result, the DWG535 (produced along with syrup 536 after the thin stillage 529 goesthrough the evaporation step 528), DWGS 537 (centrifuged wet cake 531and syrup 536) and/or DDG/DDGS 539 produced downstream, provide novelanimal feeds (including pet foods) having proteins (known in the art)which are not normally bio-available to the digestive system of mostanimals, including, but not limited to, swine, poultry, beef and dairycattle, and the like, further including domesticated animals.

Sonication of the whole stillage 527 (in step 507) also results inhomogenization of the material. Homogenization causes surface areaexpansion of the insoluble solids in the whole stillage 527, thereforeincreasing the rate of drying in the drying step 530 downstream. As aresult, energy requirements related to drying are reduced. In oneembodiment, energy costs are reduced by ten (10)% or more.

In one embodiment, sonication is additionally or alternatively appliedto the thin stillage 529 in a sixth sonication step (sonication 6) 509.In one embodiment, sonication is additionally or alternatively appliedto the wet cake 531 in a seventh sonication step (sonication 7) 511.However, it is expected that surface area expansion of the insolublesolids (as well as the breakdown of complex proteins) are maximized whensonication is applied directly to the whole stillage 527 as comparedwith the wet cake 531 alone, because it is easier to shear the insolublesolids while still present within the whole stillage 527.

FIG. 6 is a diagram showing novel methods of ethanol production usingsonication in one or more locations in a novel ultrasonic modified drygrind ethanol production process 600. The application of sonication tocorn fiber derived from any modified dry grind ethanol process improvesthe extraction efficiency and yield of fiber oils, fiber phytosterols,fiber gums, fiber carotenoids, and fiber tocopherols, and any otherneutraceuticals and chemicals extracted from corn fiber. The applicationof sonication to any existing modified dry grind ethanol process alsoimproves the efficiencies, yields, and quality of existing corn defiberand degerm technologies in which corn germ and coarse fiber (pericarp),are removed and separated from the remaining corn components.

In this embodiment, a first sonication step (sonication 1) 601 can beprovided just after the short soaking 606, i.e., prior to the degermstep 608. Sonication of the uncooked slurry at this point causes enablesgerm to pop out more efficiently, possibly reducing the amount ofgrinding needed in subsequent steps. Sonication at this point may alsoreduce the amount of degerming required in the degerm step 608. In oneembodiment, use of the first sonication step 601 removes and separatescorn germ from the remaining corn grain components, thus eliminating theneed for the degerm step 608 altogether. The first sonication step 601may also enable both corn germ and coarse fiber (pericarp) to besimultaneously stripped away from the endosperm, possibly reducing theamount of grinding required downstream. Sonication at this point mayalso eliminate the need for both the degerm step 608 and the defiberstep 610.

Additionally or alternatively, a second sonication step (sonication 2)602 can be provided to the uncooked slurry between the degerm step 608and defiber step 610. Use of sonication at this point, helps to removethe coarse fiber (pericarp), from the remaining corn grain components,thus reducing the amount of fiber that needs to be separated in thedefiber step 610. Sonication at this point may also eliminate the needfor the defiber step 610 altogether.

Additionally or alternatively, a third sonication step (sonication 3)603 can be provided to the uncooked slurry before the cooking step 615,which again can be a jet cooking or non-jet cooking process.Additionally or alternatively, a fourth sonication step (sonication 4)605 can be provided to the slurry during the cooking step 615.Additionally or alternatively, a fifth sonication step (sonication 5)607 can be provided to the resulting cooked mash just after the cookingstep 614. Sonication at these points in the process again causes proteinand fine fiber to be stripped from the starch, thus enhancingliquefaction. Again, in some embodiments, liquefaction holding timeand/or required alpha-amylase amount to achieve liquefaction is reduced.The same considerations discussed above in FIG. 5 with regard toidentifying the optimum sonication conditions in and around the cookingstep, as well as the benefits discussed above in FIG. 5 with regard tothe use of sonication in and around the cooking step 615 also apply withthe modified dry grind ethanol process.

As noted above in reference to FIG. 5, sonication is also not likely tobe used immediately after the saccharification step 618, although itcould be in embodiments in which the saccharification step 618 andfermentation step 620 are performed separately. FIG. 6 further shows adistillation and dehydration step 624 which produces ethanol asdescribed in FIG. 1. The subsequent centrifugation step 626 centrifugesthe residuals produced with the distillation and dehydration step 624 asdescribed in FIG. 1 to produce stillage and wet cake as shown in FIG. 6.Additionally, as noted in FIG. 5, although it is also possible to applysonication to the stillage, since the fiber, germ, and other graininsoluble components have been removed at this stage of the process,this stillage has very little insoluble solids present and any benefitsachieved may be limited. FIG. 6 further shows the stillage going throughan evaporation step 628 to produce syrup and DWG. The syrup can be mixedwith the wet cake to produce DWGS as shown in FIG. 6 and described inFIG. 1. Alternatively, as shown in FIG. 6 (and described in FIG. 1), thewet cake and syrup may be dried in a drying step 630 to produceDDG/DDGS.

FIG. 7 is a diagram showing novel methods of ethanol production usingsonication in one or more locations in a novel ultrasonic wet millethanol production process 700. Generally speaking, use of sonication ina wet mill process produces cavitational forces that can loosen, shakeoff, or strip away starch granules from protein bodies, proteinmatrices, and fiber (fine or coarse), as well as disassociate tightlypacked granules and tightly packed amyloplasts which contain starchgranules. The net effect is that sonication at ultrasonic levels cangenerate higher yields of starch granules in the final starch stream,and less residual starch in the fiber stream and gluten (protein)stream.

In this embodiment, a first sonication step (sonication 1) 701 can beprovided to the heavy steep water 706, i.e., concentrated steep water(syrup) produced as a result of the steeping step 702. Sonication atthis point causes degradation or denaturation of transgenic nucleicacids and protein. Again, this result may best be obtained when using ahigh-powered ultrasonic transducer. In one embodiment, sonication isapplied to the steeping water used in the steeping step 702 as well asthe resulting syrup.

Additionally or alternatively, a second sonication step (sonication 2)703 can be provided to the uncooked slurry just after the first grindingstep 704. Sonication at this point in the process results in enhancedseparation of germ from the corn kernel in step 708, as well as enhancedseparation of fiber from starch and gluten in the fiber separating step712 downstream.

Additionally or alternatively, a third sonication step (sonication 3)705 can be provided to the uncooked slurry just after the secondgrinding step 710. Additionally or alternatively, a fourth sonicationstep (sonication 4) 707 can be provided to the uncooked slurry justafter the fiber separation step 712. At this point, the sonication isapplied to the aqueous stream of starch and gluten prior to the glutenbeing separated from the starch in the gluten separation step 714 viaany suitable method, such as centrifugation or use of hydrocyclones.Sonication at this point in the process also results in enhancedseparation of starch and gluten.

Additionally or alternatively, a fifth sonication step (sonication 5)709 can be provided to the uncooked slurry before the cooking step 715,i.e., just after the gluten separation step 714. Again, the cooking step715 can be a jet cooking or non-jet cooking process. Sonication at thispoint in the process enhances starch gelatinization and liquefaction.

Additionally or alternatively, a sixth sonication step (sonication 6)711 can be provided to the slurry during the cooking step 715.Additionally or alternatively, a seventh sonication step (sonication 7)713 can be provided to the resulting cooked mash just after the cookingstep 715. Sonication at these points in the process again causes proteinand fiber to be stripped from the starch, thus enhancing liquefaction.Again, in some embodiments, liquefaction holding time and/or requiredalpha-amylase amount to achieve liquefaction is reduced. The sameconsiderations discussed above in FIG. 5 with regard to identifying theoptimum sonication conditions in and around the cooking step, as well asthe benefits discussed above in FIG. 5 with regard to the use ofsonication in and around the cooking step 715 also apply with the wetmill ethanol process.

As noted above in reference to FIG. 5 sonication is also not likely tobe used immediately after liquefaction step 716 or the saccharificationstep 718, although it could be in embodiments in which thesaccharification step 718 and fermentation step 720 are performedseparately. The fermentation step 720 is followed by a yeast recyclingstep 722 as shown in FIG. 7 and discussed in FIG. 3. Additionally, asnoted in FIG. 5, although it is also possible to apply sonication to thestillage (produced after the distillation and dehydration step 724 asshown in FIG. 7), since the fiber and germ have been removed at thisstage of the process, the stillage has very little or no insolublesolids present and any benefits achieved may be limited.

In one embodiment, sonication applied after whole kernel milling andbefore, during and/or after cooking of starch in a dry grind, modifieddry grind or wet mill ethanol process causes stripping away of cellmacromolecules such as protein and fiber from the surface of starchgranules, as well as the opening or breaking of gelatinized starchgranules, all of which make starch granules more accessible andavailable to enzymes during liquefaction and saccharification in drygrind, modified dry grind and wet mill ethanol processing. Similarly,sonication applied after cooking in a dry grind, modified dry grind orwet mill ethanol process according to the present invention causesgelatinized starch granules to open and/or partially disintegrate, thusmaking them more accessible. The overall enabling impact is thatsonication creates greater levels of fermentable starch (in a dry grindprocess), or extracted starch (in a wet mill process), thus increasingthe yield of ethanol as a function of the total starch input. Anotherconsequence is that DDGS (a co-product of the dry grind process) willcontain lower levels of residual starch as it will have been convertedto ethanol. It is more desirable to have the lowest possible quantitiesof starch in DDGS because the starch value is realized in ethanol havinga greater commercial value than DDGS. As a result, the DDGS will behigher in protein which enhances the value of DDGS as an animal feed.

In one embodiment, sonication applied before, during or afterliquefaction in a dry grind, modified dry grind or wet mill ethanolprocess according to the present invention allows hydrolyzation ordepolymerization of long polymeric macromolecules such as starch,protein, and at very high power levels, nucleic acids. By breaking downthe various macromolecules, sonication will increase the rate ofliquefaction and saccharification of the starch by making the componentsmore accessible to alpha-amylase and gluco-amylase, the normal activeenzymes used in liquefaction and saccharification.

In one embodiment, sonication applied to any commercial ethanol processat any step prior to (upstream to) fermentation, kills contaminatingmicroorganisms through cell lysis and/or cell damage, thereby reducingthe possibility of microbial contamination during fermentation.Contaminating microorganisms include bacteria, fungi (mold), and yeasts.The application of sonication prior to fermentation also reduces oreliminates the requirement to add exogenous protease enzymes whichhydrolyze protein to make starch more accessible for hydrolysis andfermentation.

In one embodiment, sonication, when applied to any commercial ethanolprocess at any step prior to (upstream of) fermentation or any stepsubsequent to (down stream from) fermentation, can degrade, depolymerize(hydrolyze), or denature mycotoxins produced by molds which are presentin the incoming corn feedstock. By detoxifyinig mycotoxins throughultrasonic degradation or depolymerization, mycotoxin levels will bedrastically reduced or eliminated in DWGS and DDGS, thus allowing thesecomponents to readily achieve safe toxicity levels for animal feedpurposes. Therefore, use of sonication as described herein will allowethanol plant grain deliveries, which normally would be rejected due tounacceptable fungal and mycotoxin loads, to be accepted for ethanolprocessing.

When applied to any of the processes listed above, sonication increasesethanol plant throughput, reduces energy and enzyme input costs,increases ethanol yields, and reduces residual starch in DWGS or DDGS.

When applied to any of the process described herein at any point,sonication increases ethanol plant throughput, reduces energy and enzymeinput costs, increases ethanol yields and reduces residual starch inDWGS or DDGS.

In one embodiment, sonication, when applied to any commercial dry grind,modified dry grind or wet mill ethanol process in which the feedstockconsists of genetically modified corn, at any point in the process willdegrade, depolymerize (hydrolyze), or denature transgenicdeoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), transgenic ribonucleic acid (RNA), andtransgenic proteins derived from genetically-modified corn. Thedegradation, depolymerization, or denaturation of transgenic DNA, RNA,and protein will be adequately severe as to render transgenic DNA, RNA,and protein as undetectable by standard methods of analysis of primaryproducts and co-products from any commercial wet mill or dry grindethanol process. As a result, sonication will render any primary productand co-product acceptable for export to countries which have not yetapproved import of food and feed products derived from geneticallymodified corn. Primary products and co-products include but are notlimited to ethanol, DDGS and DWGS from the dry mill (dry grind) ethanolprocess, as well as starch, germ, gluten feed, and gluten meal from thewet mill ethanol process. Standard methods of analysis for transgenicDNA, RNA, and protein, include but are not limited to polymerase chainreaction (PCR) detection methods, Southern blot methods, Northern blotmethods and dipstick hybridization methods, as well as immunologicaldetection methods such as Western blot methods and Enzyme-LinkedImmuno-Sorbent Assay (ELISA) methods, as is known in the art.

In one embodiment, complex proteins (i.e., proteins not normallybio-available to the digestive systems of many animals, i.e., proteinsnot susceptible to hydrolysis to amino acids by proteolytic enzymes)present in whole stillage are affected by application of sonication,producing novel animal feeds having proteins which are less complex andtherefore more bio-available to the digestive systems of many animals.The proteins are affected in any number of ways with sonication,including but not limited to, being shaken loose or stripped away fromstarch granules or fiber, thus making the protein more available forhydrolysis by digestive (proteolytic) enzymes. Proteins associated ascomplexes and protein matrices are also being disrupted anddisassociated to make them more available for hydrolysis by digestive(proteolytic) enzymes. Proteins are also being mechanically hydrolyzedby cavitational forces into short chain peptides, which are more readilyfurther hydrolyzed by digestive (proteolytic) enzymes.

In one embodiment, sonication is used for the improvement in processefficiency, product yield, speed, or product quality of any processingstep throughout the commercial dry grind ethanol process, or for anytype and design of modified dry grind ethanol process or wet millprocess. This includes, but is not limited to the application ofsonication to improve the yield of ethanol production, or the rate(speed) of ethanol production, or the combination of the yield ofethanol and rate (speed) of ethanol production, and the application ofsonication to reduce or eliminate processing inputs such as quantity ofenzymes, quantity of heat and energy, and quantity of chemicals.

Embodiments of the present invention will now be further described inthe following non-limiting examples.

EXAMPLE 1

Introduction

High Power Ultrasonication (HPU) was evaluated for various intermediateprocessing streams for the standard corn dry grind ethanol process, andfor the standard corn wet mill process. (Future testing will likelyinclude testing with lower-powered sonication). For all studies, anopen, batch sonication process was deployed using a hammer-head stylehorn. Specifically, a Branson 7.6 cm (three-inch) high-gain horn, P/N318-008-021 manufactured by Branson Ultrasonics Corporation havingoffices in Danbury, Conn., was used together with an Etrema ProductsBooster Horn, Q=2, P/N PP12106015 on an air cooled version of an EtremaUTS-3000 transducer. Samples were sonicated within large metal beakers.For the corn dry grind ethanol process, all sonications were carried outat a power of about three (3) kilowatts and a frequency of approximately20 kilohertz, with residence times ranging from approximately zero (0)to 20 minutes.

Experimental Procedure

Samples to be treated by HPU were produced by Midwest Grain Processors,having offices in Lakota, Iowa, although samples could have beenobtained from any commercial dry grind corn ethanol plant. Approximatelyten (10) gallons (approximately 37.9 liters) of primary samples weretaken via sample valves from four different intermediate processingstreams from the commercial ethanol plant processing line. Primarysamples taken were designated accordingly: #1) corn slurry (which isintended herein to be a reference to “uncooked” corn slurry); #2) flashsample, i.e., “cooked mash,” which is immediately post-jet cook andpre-liquefaction tank; #3) fermentation feed, i.e., “liquefied mash,”which is immediately post-liquefaction and pre-fermentation tank; and#4) whole stillage, which is produced after the first distillation step.Each primary sample was split into 3.8 liter (one (1) gal) subsampleswhich were sonicated in duplicate at three to four different timeintervals, and taken to a laboratory for further bench-top analyses.Solids levels of all samples evaluated were approximately 30% by weight.Therefore, in order for all the material in solution to receive adequateexposure to the sound waves created near the horn, samples were mixedmanually during batch sonication.

FIG. 8 illustrates points where primary samples were taken and thesubsequent laboratory processing plan performed for each sample.Post-sonication subsamples, derived from primary samples 1-3, weretransferred to the laboratory where they were subjected to the remainingbiochemical conversion steps to produce ethanol, which included cookingfor approximately one (1) hour at about 85° C., liquefaction byalpha-amylase for approximately one (1) hour at about 85° C., andsimultaneous saccharification by gluco-amylase and yeast fermentationfor approximately 48 hours at about 30° C. At the end of fermentation,ethanol and residual sugars were quantitated by High Performance LiquidChromatography (HPLC) analyses using standard HPLC equipment andtechniques known in the art. Post-sonication subsamples, derived fromprimary sample 4 (whole stillage) were evaluated for total solids,soluble solids, and insoluble solids. FIG. 9 shows the steps taken withtwo example slurry samples. In this example, each slurry sample wasdivided into four parts as shown and subject to sonication for varyingamounts of time, including zero (0) minutes and approximately one (1),five (5) and ten (10) minutes. Thereafter all flasks were treated at thesame time to cooking at about 85° C., liquefaction and then SSF,Dextrose Equivalent (DE) values were then calculated and HPLC analysesperformed.

Results—Studies 1 and 2

In the first sonication study, corn slurry (#1 primary samples) sampleswere split into subsamples and were sonicated for approximately five (5)and seven (7) minutes. Percent ethanol was measured before labfermentations went to completion. Normally, fermentations are allowed togo to completion, in which residual glucose would typically be less thanabout one (1) %. Therefore, a “calculated” ethanol yield is based onpercent ethanol measured by HPLC plus additional ethanol potentialrealized if all HPLC quantitated residual sugars and malto-dextrins arefully converted to ethanol. The results for impact on calculated ethanolyield are shown below in FIG. 10, in which approximately five (5) and7.5 min batch sonications increased calculated ethanol yield by about3.8% and 9.9%, respectively, over the non-sonicated control.

In a second study, the experiment was repeated on new corn slurrysamples (i.e., new #1 primary samples), and in this instancefermentations went to completion, in which residual sugars were lessthan one (1)%. This allowed yields to be determined as “real” or“actual” ethanol” and not calculated ethanol (See FIG. 11). The repeatsonications confirmed that HPU of corn slurry had a positive effect onfermentations, in which final ethanol yields increased by about 0.5% to1.5% over the non-sonicated control.

Results—Studies 3 and 4

HPU of both slurry samples (#1 primary samples) and post-jet cook flashsamples (#2 primary samples) were also evaluated for a positive impacton the starch liquefaction process by alpha-amylase, as determined byDextrose Equivalents, or “DE” values. Dextrose Equivalents is a measureof the amount of dextrin molecules released from alpha-amylaseliquefaction (starch hydrolysis) based on the quantitation of glucose atthe reducing ends of dextrin chains. DE values are a reflection of theefficiency of liquefaction. Higher DE values are important for reducingviscosity, converting starch to dextrins, and for enhancing efficientdextrin saccharification to glucose by gluco-amylase. Higher DE levelsindicate a potential for greater rate and/or yield for conversion ofstarch to glucose and ethanol, as well as a potential reduction inenzyme costs.

In the third study, corn slurry (#1 primary) samples were taken from theethanol plant, split into subsamples, and sonicated for approximatelyfive (5) and seven (7) minutes. The sonicated slurry samples were thencooked and liquefied for about one (1) hour as described above. DEvalues were then measured at the end of the liquefaction step. Theresults for impact of HPU on DE values are shown below in FIG. 12, andindicate an enhancement of the liquefaction process in which DE valuesincreased by about 7.8% to 9.6% for approximately five (5) and seven (7)min of sonication, respectively, over the non-sonicated control. Theseresults indicate that HPU of corn slurry has a positive effect on starchliquefaction by alpha-amylase.

In a fourth study, flash samples (#2 primary samples) were takenimmediately post-jet cook from the ethanol plant, split into subsamples,and sonicated for approximately five (5), ten (10) and 25 minuteintervals. The sonicated flash samples were then liquefied at thelaboratory bench as described above. The results for impact of HPU on DEvalues before the liquefaction step are shown below in FIG. 13. Theresults indicate that DE values increased by about 26%, 61%, and 84% forthe approximately five (5), ten (10) and 25 minutes of sonication,respectively, over the non-sonicated control. These results indicatethat HPU of corn flash samples had a positive effect on liquefaction andDE values. At this stage, it is likely that sonication is enablingalpha-amylase which was added to the corn slurry before jet-cooking.However, it is also possible that sonication is imparting “mechanicalhydrolysis” of starch to dextrins based upon a shearing action createdby cavitational forces, as opposed to enzymatic hydrolysis byalpha-amylase. This mechanical hydrolysis would also cause DE values togo up before the second dose of alpha-amylase is added for theliquefaction step. In this fourth study, the same sonicated flashsamples were then taken through the laboratory liquefaction step asdescribed above, and DE values were again measured at the end of onehour of liquefaction. The results shown in FIG. 14 show starchliquefaction by alpha-amylase to be enhanced by about six (6) % and 15%for the approximately ten (10) and 25 minute sonication, respectively.In this case, a five (5) minute sonication did not have any benefit, andthe approximately 25 minute sonication was not optimal, or possibly toolong an exposure time for sonication to generate the best benefit towardliquefaction.

Results—Study 5

As the above results indicate, sonication can enhance the liquefactionprocess by alpha-amylase, as evidenced by higher DE values. In thisstudy, a determination was made as to whether or not sonication canallow for the reduction in the quantity of required alpha-amylase forthe approximately one (1) hour liquefaction step. It is important tonote that any reduction in alpha-amylase due to sonication would requirea concomitant reduction in viscosity due to sonication. This is becausemost ethanol plants overdose their liquefaction tanks with alpha-amylasefor the purpose of reducing viscosity imparted from gelatinized starch,even though adequate conversion to dextrins can be achieved at loweralpha-amylase levels which would allow for efficient saccharification bygluco-amylase.

Therefore, as a fifth study, an alpha-amylase enzyme reduction study wasundertaken, in which flash samples (#2 primary samples) were obtainedimmediately post-jet cook from the ethanol plant, split into subsamples,and sonicated for five (5) minutes. Sonicated and non-sonicatedsubsamples were then taken through a laboratory bench liquefaction asdescribed above, but using four different load levels of alpha-amylase.The quantity of enzyme analogous to the level used in commercialliquefaction tanks was designated “100% dosage”, while reducedalpha-amylase levels were designated 75% dosage (75% of 100% dosage),50% dosage (50% of 100% dosage), and zero (0) % dosage (no alpha-amylaseenzyme added). At the end of laboratory bench liquefaction, DE valueswere measured for all enzyme dosages, with and without sonication.

Results of the enzyme reduction study shown in FIG. 15 indicate that afive (5) minute sonication enhanced liquefaction, as measured by DEvalues, by approximately 4.5% and 3.9% with a 75% dosage and a 50%dosage, respectively. (Striped bars indicate sonicated samples). This isin comparison to non-sonicated controls. HPU also increased liquefactionby 4.6%, as measured by DE values, with no reduction in alpha-amylase(100% dosage) compared to non-sonicated control. An ideal final DE rangefor the end of liquefaction is between ten (10) and 11 DE. Dry grindcorn ethanol plants typically achieve a final DE of about 12 to 13 atthe end of the liquefaction process, due to “over-dosing” withalpha-amylase in order to obtain a greater reduction in starchviscosity, and hence reduced mash viscosity, before going into thefermentors. In this study, a 50% dosage of alpha-amylase gave a final DEof approximately 11.1%, which is “on-target” for hydrolysis anddextrinization of starch. However, a 50% or 75% dosage of alpha-amylase(50% or 25% reduction in alpha-amylase, respectively) due to HPU wouldonly have commercial benefit if there was also adequate, concommitantreduction in final viscosity at the end of liquefaction. In this enzymereduction study, final viscosity was not measured, so it is not yetknown whether any reduced alpha-amylase levels in conjunction with HPUwere sufficient for target viscosity reduction. However, it was observedthat viscosities appeared adequately reduced to commercial requirementsafter laboratory bench liquefaction for both the 50% and 75% enzymedosages.

Results—Study 6

In a sixth sonication study, fermentation feed samples, i.e., liquefiedmash samples, otherwise referred to as post-liquefaction andpre-fermentation tank samples, (#3 primary samples) were split intosubsamples and sonicated for approximately five (5), ten (10) and 15minutes. Sonicated subsamples then underwent laboratory simultaneoussaccharification and fermentation as described above. Calculated percentethanol yields were measured. This included ethanol measured by HPLC andadditional ethanol potential realized from low levels of residual sugarsand malto-dextrins quantitated by HPLC. The results for impact oncalculated ethanol yield are shown in FIG. 16, in which the five (5),ten (10) and 15 minute. batch sonications of fermentation feed increasedcalculated ethanol yield by approximately 17.6%, 16.7 and 16.7%,respectively, over the non-sonicated control.

Results—Study 7

In a seventh sonication study, whole stillage samples taken after thefirst distillation step (#4 primary samples) were split into subsamplesand sonicated for approximately five (5), ten (10) and 15 minutes.Sonicated subsamples then underwent laboratory benchtop centrifugationto remove the insoluble solids as a centrifugal pellet using standardbenchtop centrifugation equipment and techniques known in the art. Thispellet is analogous to the wet cake obtained in a commercial dry grindethanol plant after centrifugation of the whole stillage. Insolublesolids were quantitated by drying the centrifugal pellet to remove allmoisture, and then weighing the dried solids. The results werecalculated as percent total insoluble solids in the pellet (wet cake).The results for the impact of sonication on whole stillage are in FIG.17 which shows the five (5), ten (10) and 15 minute batch sonicationsincreased the level of total insoluble solids in the pellet byapproximately 3.6%, 5.7%, and 3.6%, respectively, which necessarilyresults in a corresponding decrease in the total insoluble solids in theremoved moisture (i.e., the thin stillage in a commercial ethanolplant).

Analysis

Several positive results were achieved using ultrasonic energy withethanol production, specifically with standard corn dry grind ethanolproduction. These include, but are not limited to, increasedfermentation ethanol yields with application of ultrasonic energy to acorn slurry batch and fermentation feed; enhanced hydrolysis andliquefaction of starch as measured by increased DE values withapplication of ultrasonic energy to a corn slurry batch and to post jetcook flash samples.

Batch HPU of flash samples allowed for an approximately 25% to 50%reduction in normal alpha-amylase dosage during liquefaction. The impacton viscosity after liquefaction is not known, but visual observationsuggests that HPU also contributed to desired viscosity reduction atreduced levels of alpha-amylase. It is assumed that cavitational forcescreated by HPU of the corn slurry are shaking raw starch granules loosefrom fiber and protein matrices before jet cooking, which may be thecause for an increase in ethanol yields.

Cavitational forces created by HPU before liquefaction may possiblycause mechanical hydrolysis of starch to dextrins. Alternatively,cavitational forces may simply be disrupting or breaking opengelatinized starch granules to make them more accessible to hydrolysisalpha-amylase. Similarly, cavitational forces created by HPU afterliquefaction, may possibly cause mechanical hydrolysis of dextrins andoligosaccharides. Alternatively, cavitational forces within thefermentation feed may simply be shaking loose, disrupting, or breakingopen starch granules resistant to gelatinization and/or resistant todegradation by alpha-amylase and gluco-amylase.

Batch HPU of whole stillage increased the levels of total insolublesolids in the centrifugal pellet, analogous to the wet cake from acommercial dry grind ethanol process. These results imply that HPU canimprove the efficiency of the commercial dewatering process of wholestillage. The benefit is realized in less moisture in the wet cake(pellet) and a consequent reduction in energy costs when the wet cake isdried in commercial gas-fired dryers.

It is also likely that similar or even improved benefits can be obtainedwith the use of lower powered ultrasonication, particularly in certainlocations as discussed herein, as well as with frequencies belowultrasonic levels. Additionally, it is likely benefits can be improvedand/or varied as desired within a particular type of process by varyingany number of factors, including, but not limited to, the location orlocations in the process at which the sonication is applied, theintensity and frequency at which sonication is applied, alcoholproduction process variables, and the like.

EXAMPLE 2

Corn Fiber from Corn Wet Mill Process

In the conventional wet mill process (described in FIG. 3), theendosperm slurry exiting step 308, which is now devoid of germ, butcontaining fiber, protein and starch, is then subjected to a finegrinding step (second grinding) 310 in which there is total disruptionof endosperm and release of endosperm components (protein and starch)from the fiber. This is followed by a fiber separation step 312 in whichthe slurry is passed through a series of screens in order to separatethe fiber from starch and protein, and to wash the fiber clean ofprotein and starch.

It is well-known in the corn wet milling industry that when corn fiberis washed to separate it from starch and protein, residual starchgranules remain bound to the surface of the corn fiber. This boundstarch is carried with the fiber during the fiber drying process togluten feed, and is considered lost value in that it is not captured andconverted into ethanol production. Cavitational forces have thepotential to shake loose starch granules adhered to corn fiber in orderto maximize starch yields. The objective of the corn fiber study was todetermine if HPU could function as a “stand-alone” corn fiber treatmentto enhance wet mill ethanol production by causing release and recoveryof corn starch granules from the corn fiber.

Procedure and Results

The starting material was a dried corn fiber co-product sample producedby Aventine Renewable Energy, Inc., a wet mill ethanol plant in Pekin,Ill., although such samples are also obtainable at any commercial cornwet mill plant. The wet mill corn fiber sample was collected prior tobeing mixed with concentrated steep water at the plant. In thissonication study, wet mill corn fiber was suspended at ten (10)%weight/volume (w/v) solids in deionized water. The final volume for eachsuspension was 500 ml. Sonications were carried out for zero (0) minutes(control) and approximately five (5) and 15 minutes. Samples thenunderwent a concentrated acid hydrolysis treatment to hydrolyzeavailable starch to glucose sugars. Sugars (pentoses and hexoses) werethen measured via High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC). Glucosequantitation is therefore directly related to unbound, available starchfor acid hydrolysis.

Table 1 below shows the oligomer sugar concentrations in liquid phaseafter acid hydrolysis treatment for a corn fiber substrate. TABLE 1Oligomer Sugar Concentrations in Liquid Phase after Acid HydrolysisTreatment Substrate (min) Glucose* Xylose* Arabinose* Acetate* CornFiber 0 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.00 Corn Fiber 5 0.71 0.06 0.04 0.02 Corn Fiber15 0.81 0.04 0.03 0.01*in % weight/volume

On average, wet mill corn fiber contains approximately 20% by weightstarch. The glucose concentration results provided in Table 1 and shownin FIG. 18 indicate that HPU treatment did release approximatelyone-third of the available starch from the corn fiber in comparison tothe non-sonicated control (0 minutes). This was evidenced by an increasein glucose concentrations after acid hydrolysis of the unbound,released, free starch in the liquid phase, which corresponds toapproximately one-third of the total theoretical glucose available giventhat the corn fiber contains 20% starch. The results indicate that boundstarch granules are “shaken loose” from corn fiber via HPU cavitationalforces. The implication is that HPU could be an effective technology fora corn wet mill in order to maximize starch yields, which may besub-optimal due to adhesion of starch granules to the fiber co-productprocessing stream. Maximization of wet mill starch yields would, inturn, maximize ethanol yields in a wet mill ethanol process.

CONCLUSION

Application of sonication to one or more of the various processingstreams in a dry grind, wet mill or modified dry grind ethanol processcan be accomplished with relatively minor retrofitting of existingequipment. Essentially, the transducer(s) can easily be interfaced withor integrated into existing processing steps and technologies, thusallowing ethanol producers to overcome technological hurdles,inefficiencies, and poor yields in an easy and cost efficient mannerwithout the need to undergo costly and time-consuming re-tooling oftheir facilities. Additionally, sonication may potentially be used atany phase of other alcohol production processes to provide enhancementsand benefits as described herein. In one embodiment, ethanol yield isimproved by about one (1) to ten (10)% with the use of sonication at oneor more locations in an ethanol production facility.

Although specific embodiments have been illustrated and describedherein, it will be appreciated by those of ordinary skill in the artthat any arrangement that is calculated to achieve the same purpose maybe substituted for the specific embodiment shown. For example, althoughthe various systems and methods described herein have focused on corn,virtually any type of grain, including, but not limited to, wheat,barley, sorghum, rye, rice, oats and the like, can be used. Thisapplication is intended to cover any adaptations or variations of thepresent subject matter. Therefore, it is manifestly intended thatembodiments of this invention be limited only by the claims and theequivalents thereof.

1. A system comprising: one or more high-powered transducers; and analcohol production facility having a grain-based liquid mediumprocessing stream wherein the one or more high-powered transducers canapply sonication to the liquid medium processing stream in one or morelocations at a frequency effective to increase ethanol yield and reduceresidual starch levels when applied prior to distillation, furtherwherein the alcohol production facility is a starch-to-alcoholproduction facility adapted for use with the one or more high-poweredtransducers.
 2. The system of claim 1 wherein the alcohol productionfacility is an ethanol production facility.
 3. The system of claim 2wherein grain in the grain-based liquid medium processing stream isselected from the group consisting of corn, rye, sorghum, wheat, barley,oats and rice.
 4. The system of claim 2 wherein the liquid mediumprocessing stream is selected from the group consisting of heavy steepwater, uncooked slurry, cooked mash, liquefied mash, thin stillage, wetcake and whole stillage.
 5. The system of claim 1 wherein the alcoholproduction facility is a dry grind, modified dry grind or wet millethanol production facility and the liquid medium processing stream isan uncooked slurry, wherein application of the sonication to theuncooked slurry eliminates a jet cooking step.
 6. The system of claim 1wherein the alcohol production facility is a dry grind, modified drygrind or wet mill ethanol production facility which includes afermentation step, further wherein the sonication is applied to theliquid medium processing stream prior to the fermentation step in one ormore locations.
 7. The system of claim 6 wherein the liquid mediumprocessing stream further comprises heavy steep water, cooked mash andliquefied mash, wherein the sonication is also applied to one or more ofthe heavy steep water, cooked mash or liquefied mash.
 8. The system ofclaim 7 wherein the alcohol production facility is a dry grind ethanolproduction facility and the liquid medium processing stream furtherincludes whole stillage, thin stillage and wet cake, wherein thesonication is also applied to one or more of the whole stillage, thinstillage or wet cake.
 9. The system of claim 1 wherein the alcoholproduction facility is a dry grind, modified dry grind or wet millethanol production facility having a jet cooking step, further whereinthe sonication is applied to the liquid medium processing stream in alocation selected from the group consisting of prior to the jet cookingstep, during the jet cooking step, after the jet cooking step and anycombination thereof.
 10. The system of claim 9 wherein the dry grindprocess has a liquefaction step, further wherein the sonication isapplied to the liquid medium processing stream after the liquefactionstep.
 11. The system of claim 9 wherein the dry grind process produceswhole stillage as an intermediate component, further wherein thesonication is applied to the whole stillage.
 12. The system of claim 9wherein the dry grind process has a milling step, further wherein thesonication is applied to the liquid medium processing stream after themilling step.
 13. The system of claim 12 wherein the dry grind processhas a liquefaction step, further wherein the sonication is applied tothe liquid medium processing stream after the liquefaction step.
 14. Thesystem of claim 12 wherein the dry grind process produces whole stillageas an intermediate component, further wherein sonication is applied tothe whole stillage.
 15. The system of claim 1 wherein the alcoholproduction facility is a dry grind, modified dry grind or wet millethanol production facility having a non-jet cooking step, furtherwherein the sonication is applied to the liquid medium processing streamin a location selected from the group consisting of prior to the non-jetcooking step, during the non-jet cooking step, after the non-jet cookingstep and any combination thereof.
 16. The system of claim 15 wherein thedry grind process has a liquefaction step, further wherein thesonication is applied to the liquid medium processing stream after theliquefaction step.
 17. The system of claim 15 wherein the dry grindprocess produces whole stillage as an intermediate component, furtherwherein the sonication is applied to the whole stillage.
 18. The systemof claim 15 wherein the dry grind process has a milling step, furtherwherein the sonication is applied to the liquid medium processing streamafter the milling step.
 19. The system of claim 18 wherein the dry grindprocess has a liquefaction step, further wherein the sonication isapplied to the liquid medium processing stream after the liquefactionstep.
 20. The system of claim 18 wherein the dry grind process produceswhole stillage as an intermediate component, further wherein thesonication is applied to the whole stillage.
 21. The system of claim 2wherein the ethanol production facility utilizes a dry grind process.22. The system of claim 21 wherein the dry grind process produces thinstillage and a wet cake, further wherein the sonication is applied toone or more of the thin stillage or wet cake.
 23. The system of claim 21wherein the dry grind process has a milling step, further wherein thesonication is applied to the liquid medium processing stream after themilling step.
 24. The system of claim 23 wherein the dry grind processhas a liquefaction step, further wherein the sonication is applied tothe liquid medium processing stream after the liquefaction step.
 25. Thesystem of claim 24 wherein the dry grind process produces whole stillageas an intermediate component, further wherein the sonication is appliedto the whole stillage.
 26. The system of claim 21 wherein the dry grindprocess has a liquefaction step, further wherein the sonication isapplied to the liquid medium processing stream after the liquefactionstep.
 27. The system of claim 26 wherein the dry grind process produceswhole stillage as an intermediate component, further wherein thesonication is applied to the whole stillage.
 28. The system of claim 21wherein the dry grind process produces whole stillage as an intermediatecomponent, further wherein the sonication is applied to the wholestillage.
 29. The system of claim 28 wherein the dry grind processfurther produces thin stillage and a wet cake, further wherein thesonication increases insoluble solids content in the wet cake anddecreases insoluble solids content in the thin stillage.
 30. The systemof claim 28 wherein the sonication breaks down complex proteins presentin the whole stillage to produce proteins having improved digestivebioavailability, further wherein animal feed produced from the wholestillage contains the proteins having the improved digestivebioavailability.
 31. The system of claim 28 wherein the sonicationincreases surface area of components in the whole stillage resulting inreduced drying time for the components.
 32. The system of claim 2wherein the ethanol production facility utilizes a modified dry grindprocess.
 33. The system of claim 32 wherein the modified dry processincludes a soaking, further wherein the sonication is applied to theliquid medium processing stream at least after the soaking.
 34. Thesystem of claim 33 wherein the sonication is followed by a degerm step,a defiber step or a fine grind step.
 35. The system of claim 32 whereinthe modified dry process includes a degerm step, further wherein thesonication is applied to the liquid medium processing stream at leastafter the degerm step.
 36. The system of claim 35 wherein the sonicationis followed by a defiber step or a fine grind step.
 37. The system ofclaim 2 wherein the ethanol production facility utilizes a wet millprocess.
 38. The system of claim 37 wherein the wet mill processproduces heavy steep water, further wherein the sonication is applied atleast to the heavy steep water.
 39. The system of claim 37 wherein thewet mill process includes a first grinding, further wherein thesonication is applied to the liquid medium processing stream at leastafter the first grinding.
 40. The system of claim 39 wherein the wetmill process includes a second grinding, further wherein the sonicationis applied to the liquid medium processing stream at least after thesecond grinding.
 41. The system of claim 37 wherein the wet mill processincludes a fiber separation step, further wherein the sonication isapplied to the liquid medium processing stream at least after the fiberseparation step.
 42. The system of claim 41 wherein the wet mill processincludes a second grinding, further wherein the sonication is applied tothe liquid medium processing stream after the second grinding.
 43. Thesystem of claim 1 wherein each of the one or more high-poweredtransducers has an active element made from a smart material.
 44. Thesystem of claim 43 wherein at least one of the one or more high-poweredtransducers generates about three (3) to ten (10) kW of power.
 45. Thesystem of claim 43 wherein the smart material is selected from the groupconsisting of piezoelectrics, ferroelectrics, piezoceramics andmagnetostrictive materials.
 46. The system of claim 45 wherein themagnetostrictive material is selected from the group consisting offerrous metals, vanadium permendur, metallic glass, nickel, terbium,dysprosium, gallium and combinations thereof.
 47. The system of claim 46wherein the high-powered transducer operates at a frequency of about ten(10) to 20 kHz.
 48. The system of claim 47 wherein at least one of theone or more high-powered transducers is a high-powered ultrasonictransducer operating at a frequency of at least about 17 kHz.
 49. Thesystem of claim 48 wherein the high-powered ultrasonic transduceroperates at a frequency of between 19.5 and 20.5 kHz.
 50. The system ofclaim 1 further comprising one or more transducers operating at leastthan about three (3) kW of power.
 51. The system of claim 1 wherein eachof the one or more transducers operate for no more than ten minutes inone or more locations of the liquid medium processing stream.
 52. Thesystem of claim 2 wherein ethanol yield is improved by one (1) to ten(10) % with the use of sonication.
 53. A system comprising: one or morehigh-powered transducers; and an ethanol production facility having acorn-based liquid medium processing stream, the ethanol productionfacility adapted for use with the one or more high-powered transducerswherein sonication can be applied to the corn-based liquid mediumprocessing stream in one or more locations, wherein the one or morehigh-powred transducers operate at a frequency effective to increaseethanol yield and reduce residual starch levels when applied prior todistillation.
 54. The system of claim 53 wherein the liquid mediumprocessing stream is flowing at about 50 to 400 gpm and the sonicationis applied to the processing stream at a frequency of about ten (10) to20 kHz and a power of about three (3) to ten (10) kW for up to ten (10)minutes in each of the one or more locations.
 55. The system of claim 54further comprising a plurality of flow cells arranged in series or inparallel, wherein the liquid medium processing stream is directedthrough the plurality of flow cells, further wherein one of the one ormore transducers is placed into each of the plurality of flow cells. 56.The system of claim 55 wherein each of the one or more high-poweredtransducers uses a cascade horn and sonication is applied to the liquidmedium processing stream for less than five minutes in each of the oneor more locations.
 57. The system of claim 56 wherein each of the one ormore high-powered transducers has more than one horn.
 58. The system ofclaim 55 wherein the frequency is between about 19.5 to 20.5 kHz. 59.The system of claim 58 wherein the power is about ten (10) kW.
 60. Thesystem of claim 53 wherein the ethanol production facility utilizes awet mill process and sonication is applied to the liquid mediumprocessing stream at least before or during a fiber washing step. 61.The system of claim 53 wherein the ethanol production facility utilizesa dry grind process and the sonication is applied to the liquid mediumprocessing stream in one or more locations prior to fermentation. 62.The system of claim 53 wherein the sonication is applied to the liquidmedium processing stream before or after a jet cooking step.
 63. Thesystem of claim 53 wherein at least one of the one or more high-poweredtransducers is a high-powered ultrasonic transducer.
 64. The system ofclaim 63 wherein the high-powered ultrasonic transducer operates at afrequency of at least about 17 kHz.
 65. The system of claim 63 furthercomprising applying sonication to the liquid medium processing streamwith one or more transducers operating at less than about three (3) kWof power.
 66. A system comprising: one or more transducers; and analcohol production facility having a grain-based liquid mediumprocessing stream wherein the one or more transducers can applysonication to the liquid medium processing stream in one or morelocations at a frequency effective to increase ethanol yield and reduceresidual starch levels when applied prior to distillation, furtherwherein the alcohol production facility is a dry grind starch-to-alcoholproduction facility or a modified dry grind starch-to-alcohol productionfacility adapted for use with the one or more transducers, wherein grainin the grain-based liquid medium processing stream contains protein andmost or all of the protein is retained therein throughout the dry grindstarch-to-alcohol production facility or the modified dry grindstarch-to-alcohol production facility until alcohol is produced, whereina separate processing stream containing substantially all or most of thepredetermined level of protein is also produced.
 67. The system of claim66 wherein the separate processing stream containing substantially allor most of the predetermined level of protein is a stillage streamproduced by a dehydration and distillation step.
 68. The system of claim66 wherein sonication is at a level sufficient to generate cavitationalforces in the liquid medium processing stream.
 69. The system of claim67 wherein the starch-to-alcohol production facility is astarch-to-ethanol production facility.
 70. The system of claim 69wherein the starch-to-ethanol production facility utilizes a dry grindprocess.
 71. The system of claim 70 wherein the stillage stream containswhole stillage and sonication is applied at least to the whole stillage.72. The system of claim 71 wherein the sonication breaks down complexproteins present in the whole stillage to produce proteins havingimproved digestive bioavailability, further wherein animal feed producedfrom the whole stillage contains the proteins having improved digestivebioavailability.
 73. The system of claim 70 wherein the dry grindprocess produces a thin stillage product and a wet cake product, furtherwherein the sonication is applied to the liquid medium processing streamat least to a product selected from the group consisting of the thinstillage product, the wet cake product, and combinations thereof. 74.The system of 71 wherein the dry grind process further produces a thinstillage and a wet cake, further wherein the sonication increasesinsoluble solids content in the wet cake and decreases insoluble solidscontent in the thin stillage.